Climate alarmism

For years I've been posting on the hypocrisy of some who decry so-called "climate alarmism" [anyone who makes a claim consistent with consensus climate models] while at the same time engaging in the worst kind of alarmism themselves. Today's example is an easy one to post on:
The moves now being made by the world's political establishment to lock us into December's Copenhagen treaty to halt global warming are as alarming as anything that has happened in our lifetimes. Last week in Italy, the various branches of our emerging world government, G8 and G20, agreed in principle that the world must by 2050 cut its CO2 emissions in half. Britain and the US are already committed to cutting their use of fossil fuels by more than 80 per cent. Short of an unimaginable technological revolution, this could only be achieved by closing down virtually all our economic activity: no electricity, no transport, no industry.
Scary stuff: world government intent on bringing everyone back to the stone ages. What's consistently hilarious about all this is that laws intending to reduce carbon emissions can actually be reversed if science eventually tells us that their models were wrong (let's say for the sake of argument that Sen. James Inhofe is correct); or if we collectively decide that--as "don't worry, be happy" proponents like Roger Pielke (Jr and Sr) suggest--the economic consequences of slowing climate change are far more onerous than the relatively smaller consequences of climate change itself. The same cannot be said about our current state-of-the-art understanding of climate models.